What's new @ CES 2013

This year's Consumer Electronic Show is packed with exhibitors, industry analyists and press, all eager to see, touch and talk about this years' hottest electronics. CES isn't the biggest photography show in the calendar, but it's a great place to have meetings with manufacturers, handle their new products and of course get briefed on what's coming up next(even if we can't yet tell you about it).

As well as countless meetings over the course of the week, we've also found some time to explore the show and get hands-on with the most important new releases from the major camera manufacturers. Here's a quick rundown of some of the hottest new cameras on show at this year's CES. For complete coverage of all this year's photo new releases, make sure to check out our news coverage, and for more in-depth treatment of new mobile products, head over to our sister site, connect.dpreview.com.

Canon's PowerShot N is turning a lot of heads at this year's CES, thanks to its unique interface, which doesn't feature conventional zoom or shutter controls...

Nikon was showing off its new 1 J3, a new 1 System mirrorless camera that sits below the V2 in Nikon's growing 1 System lineup.

Like the V2, the J3 has a 14MP CX sensor but lacks the flagship's enthusiast-oriented manual control points and built-in EVF.

The 1 S1 sits at the bottom of the 1 system lineup, and is based around the same 10MP sensor as the older J2.

The S1 offers an extremely simplified user interface, and relies upon an on-screen 'mode dial' for feature selection.

Panasonic has been busy refreshing its compact cameras, and the higher-end models, such as this ZS30 offer Near Field Communication - a simple method for establishing a Wi-Fi connection by simply placing the two devices close to one another.

Polaroid surprised us at CES with semi-functional mockups of three new interchangeable lens cameras. They may look reminiscent of other models on the market, but the twist is that the sensors are built in to the lenses.

This is the iM1232W, which runs a conventional camera operating system, but the co-announced iM1836 runs a version of the Android OS. Click here for more coverage.

The NX300 is Samsung's newest NX model, and offers a raft of improvements over its predecessor including on-sensor phase-detection AF and a touch-sensitive screen.

Olympus take note in your next m43 epm / epl series please put the pop up flash back into the camera, not on top as separate unit, like the Nikon S1 featured here in a very small body. I really like my popup from EPL1 as its TTL power just right in close range subjects without overexposure. Please put the flash back into the body, Olympus.The Nikon S1 for about 499. with kit, although not full featured, has very fast phase detect AF so considering its larger sensor size should be more desirable to some, than a advanced compact cameras without interchangeable lenses at the same price point with much smaller sensor. For m43, how about developing Phase on sensor like Nikon or is it a patent thing? M43 Pens also need a VGA 920,000 LCD like Nikon, for more accurate colour than OLED of EPL5. My EPL1 has more accurate colour than EPL5. Regardless, still enjoy using my Pen, even after 2 years.

Getting sick & tired of the current trend of cameras loosing their EVF/OVFs .. Then bullsh*tting the public into thinking that the above is a 'Premium' feature now, when it has ALWAYS been & SHOULD always remain a FUNDAMENTAL component of a CAMERA! - That's right .. camera.. NOT a wave it about in front of your face iphone!

NOw we hold off buying computers with conventional Hard Disc Drives because they are too slow to use with USB2 and 3, and want Solid State drives instead, so too we should hold off buying these tiny sensored cameras that physically are big enough to use APS-C and even full-frame. The new Fuji may be OK, but the x100 SHOULD be a full-frame machine. Even Leitz-not exactly the most adventurous of designers, have gone full-frame at the same price.

As to the tiny sensos, well, you may as well stay with a Canon G2,3,5,6 or even a Nikon 950 as the cramming of pixels (and/or their imterpolation) has done nothing for PHOTOGRAPHY at all- just as this site repeatedly said years ago.

The number of secondhand new compacts on the market bears witness- they really are toys.

"Even Leitz-not exactly the most adventurous of designers, have gone full-frame at the same price."

What camera are you referring to here? Leica X1/X2 aren't full-frame, whereas the M series rangefinders are much more expensive than the Fuji, and that's for the bodies alone. A full-frame compact from Leica would be at least as expensive as the Sony RX1.

Imagine, if you will, a digital GX680. AF driving bellows if you need AF (and long lenses that are true telephoto), and I'd bet that the old Fujinons would still stand up these days. Okay, it would cost like an immoderately-sized house in a toney neighbourhood and they'd onlly sell eight of 'em, but why not?

"The number of secondhand new compacts on the market bears witness- they really are toys."

Actually, I think it says more about the rapid development, evolution, and progress that compact cameras are undergoing. And anyone who calls other cameras "toys" simply based on the size of their sensor probably has too much of his manhood derived from his camera equipment.

I like that Canon at least give a nod to trying something new with ergonomics. Fuji look like they really understand what they have worth the X100 design... a classic worth respect and evolutionary enhancements on the outside together with revolutionary enhancements on the inside. The X100s is going to be massive.

Samsung made a good call, building a camera with Android built in. More camera manufactures at all levels need to do this... makes app development feasible and communications seamless.

Fuji has build the path 2 or 3 years ago with Fuji´s x100 model.And now, all brands follow this iniciative.But, only Fuji has made new digicams with solid and real retro look beauty , and with the latest technology! Like the X100s model. Bravo Fuji.

Based on the recent past, the DP3M will have the new "sharpest lens on the planet." Reason: less difficult optical path compared to the most recent holder, the DP2M. The trade-off is a little more bulk, which should not pose a problem. For ca. $1k street, it will be hard to beat in terms of image quality.

Retro look, cameras looking the way they don't have to any more, funny colors, cheap(er) copies... but not much of what the end users wish. And while manufacturers should pay more attention to users, it seems their ideas come from the sources which, I think, are quite distant from its buying public. Too large percentage of "new" comes from juggling the old, anyway.In the end, we never get exactly what we want, rather what's a bit closer to what we want, from among what we can choose...

It's like fashion...retro is in. Colors are in. People have grown tired of white/gray/beige/black devices. Maybe it's not what you want but other people do.

There are lots of people who like retro, funny colors. Frankly,I've grown bored with bland white/beige/gray/silver/black colors schemes for devices. But that's me and I'm not you.

I'm sure there's something out there you like. In fact the choices are so overwhelming it's hard to choose just one without feeling like I'm missing out on something . That's life! Always been that way and always will be!

Keep in mind these are devices being shown at the CONSUMER electronics show, not a professional photographers show.

However, I have to disagree that they are not paying attention to what end users want. These devices may not reflect your wants, but they do reflect what other consumers want. These companies are not as stupid as you may think, and they will sell billions of dollars of this junk.

Totally agree. If retro is desirable, they should focus on retro functionality. What if the MX-1 functions just like the old MX? I would love to have my old MX back, but with auto focus and auto exposure. If they skip all the buttons and menus maybe we can focus more on taking pictures.

Sure there are things that I'd like, and I'm certain the companies aren't stupid... They'll sell the "junk". But there is a certain thing that I would like to be able to buy, and it's been decades that nobody tried to (re)produce that camera in digital version, although it's been possible all the time. It's not only me who'd like to acquire a digital version of Nikonos V, for example. There is also no technical barrier to do it. Instead, we get to pick among nice "tough" cameras, which are environmentally sealed / guaranteed for a certain timespan (which is quite silly, since time shouldn't play any role there), with no interchangeable lenses, and unable to withstand normal diving depths (meaning -40 to -80 meters), compared to -15 meters offered with the newest Olympus TG-2. I surely would like to have such a camera, and I'm positive that millions of divers worldwide think the same. I'm also sure the manufacturers know that...

Compatibility with bodies that don't exist yet.Sigma is probably tired of re chipping lenses with each new generation of camera body. Now you can upgrade the firmware and your Canon MK XIX will autofocus again.

Most lenses that feature electrical data connections (as opposed to the mechanical ones used before 1980s) have some kind of firmware. So lenses having a firmware is definitely not a new thing and predates consumer digital cameras by more than a decade. Upgradeable firmwares are a little bit newer, but even they have been around for years.

Most people don't make prints anymore. Most images now live on digital screens, whether it be your computer screen, iPad screen, phone screen, the internet, etc. The current zeitgeist of photography, for most people, is all about distribution so that lots of people can see your images. Prints don't accomplish this very well.

Some people actually like prints. It is the ultimate way to assess image quality, but that's not the most important reason for printing: a physical support is forever, images on the Internet will vanish from memory in just about seconds.That said I agree with Samuel, although it takes a more than decent compact camera to get good prints. Large ones aren't within the reach of most compact cameras.

But there's no point in criticizing that. Or "most people"... methinks.

Plus let's put it into perspective: why would the "average Joe" make a print of something he just want to keep for himself, show his friends or whoever else? It will not accomplish it and it will just take up space gathering the dust...

I only print what I want hung on a wall, or when I want to make an album out of something. (Even when I shoot film, I sometimes only get the negatives...)

And I don't consider it more art than what is stored on a hard drive... Just another way to display...

How old am i ?Why some people here on the net asking someone's age and without giving their age first is just plain mean and very disgusting that came from obviously non educated person that don' t have good ethics and good manners.

Some of you need to join the 21st century. In this day and age, you can take an image, and upload it to the web (literally within moments of taking the photo), where hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people can see it in a matter of minutes, hours, days. Or you can do things the old fashioned way: shoot an image, take it home, let it sit on your harddrive, or maybe print it out (so you can "assess image quality") and have maybe half a dozen people ever see it! Sorry, oldsters, but the internet isn't going away any time soon. It's not a passing fad. And it's probably the primary way that images are now viewed, distributed, shared, and talked about today.

And if all you're really interested in is "assessing image quality" of a print, then you've really lost touch with what photography is really about. You've lost sight of the soul of photography.

T3, we usually agree but not this time. The fact some people like prints doesn't mean they're old farts who live in the past. Printing and uploading to the internet are not incompatible. (And why should they be?) People didn't stop handwriting and fraternizing because computers gave them the convenience of writing with a keyboard and socializing on Facebook. Why should it be different for photography? If you think the new habits brought by the computer age completely replaced everything people used to do before, you'll end up lost if one day you're deprived of a computer.And what exactly, in your view, is photography about? You should accept the fact that some people like the feel and the permanence of a print, instead of bashing them as fools who lost touch with reality. It's not like everything new is marvellous and everything old is shameful. Your reply makes you sound like an alienated person who has no tolerance toward anyone who thinks differently.

Sadly, a lot of the older generation thinks its all about the print...and BIG prints, no less...for "assessing image quality." But the reality is that people consume and view photos in so many, many other ways now besides a print. Just because an image may never actually be printed does not make it any less of a photograph. Just because it isn't printed doesn't mean that it will make less of an impact, create less of an emotion, send less of a message, evoke less of a feeling.

I, and millions of others, enjoy looking at photos every single day...and have no need (or ability) to see the image in physical print form. So what? Photographs can look just as stunning (or oftentimes even more stunning) in my iPad as on physical paper. It's not that prints are "shameful." It's the thought that photographs aren't really photographs unless they can be evaluated in print form that is "shameful."

Manuel, except on the term, that you thought was offensive or inappropriate about "old generation", it seems to me that both your opinions are really close...

To me T3, emphasize the fact that assessing image quality should not be the purpose of photography, while you simply argue that printing is not only a thing of the past and should be given some consideration too....

But originally T3 did not bash prints, it was more a reaction.

Which somehow I perceive as you both agree the medium is not the most relevant factor. T3 argues that digital media are as relevant as any other, and you simply wanted to stress that it is just something people can enjoy as well...

It's far too early to announce the death of APS-C. The launch of the D600 and 6D might get Full Frame sales into double-digit percentages of interchangeable sales, but it's a long way from being mainstream.

APS-C offers a proven price/capability balance (and, in the Mirrorless sector, a size advantage), so I'd expect it to remain with us for a long while. It's been the standard format for many years now - Full Frame is currently a niche, specialist format, not the norm.

Lenses are no longer just glass and gears. They are complex electronic devices that pass a lot of critical communication data between the lens and the camera. Being able to give a lens a firmware update basically allows you to future-proof the lens, thus preventing its obsolescence as cameras become updated with new technologies, new algorithms, new refinements in what/how they communicate with the lens.

I agree. It will be really interesting to see how cameras and lenses develop over the next decade as more manufactures realize they are basically making computers that take pictures and start thinking about the possibilities that fact offers.

Interesting, maybe. I don't like that it mentions "new lenses" only, would be nice if they cared for older ones as well. It also looks like it is only for a single mount which in case of Sigma does not make much sense - might as well do it through their cameras. Finally, with the size of FF lenses, why not just a micro USB port on the lens itself?

The above commentary for the Panasonic ZS 25 is not quite correct -- the right panel says it has a 25x zoom while the picture of the camera in the left panel shows 20x; the separate Dpreview specs for ZS 25 also indicate a 20x zoom.

If only the camera companies would stop the completely unnecessary relabeling for different continents. There may have been some reason to do it 30 years ago, but it's completely superfluous and unnecessary now.

The ZS and TZ models do have one key difference - video frame rate. The non-US models offer PAL-compatible video (multiples of 25fps), while the North American models are NTSC (multiples of 29.97fps). Whether that makes sense is another matter but the names do mean more than 'I've paid money to the US subsidiary, so they should service it.'

Once again, lots of new cameras but only two with viewfinders. My wife (who is not as serious a photographer as me) won't even consider using a camera that does not have a viewfinder. And after struggling with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon S100 in daylight and bright sun, I will never buy another camera that doesn't have one. I can't figure why the manufacturers do not realize this. Why do they think photos ought to be taken at arm's length?

First of all, people don't take photos "at arms length." Secondly, not everyone takes photos in bright, unflattering mid-day sunlight. Thirdly, if you do happen to take photos in bright light, it's easy to just shade the screen with your free hand if you have too: instant LCD shade.

Plus, not everyone wants to have to squint through a viewfinder hole with a camera mashed to their face. LOL. Obviously, that might be an exaggeration, but obviously the point is that there other ways to take photos aside from just using an eye-level viewfinder! Besides, not everyone wants to take photos just from eye level.

Check what happens if you shoot for a day with a camera with both viewfinder and LCD screen.

What happens with me is, I almost always use the viewfinder - without really thinking about it. I only notice in retrospect. So for me it's not a complicated intellectual exercise to figure out what's best - it's my body telling me what works best. And this is after shooting for several years with only the LCD.

I don't like dark viewfinders either, was very disappointed from Canon's dark small holes in the G series models. Fuji's X10 / X20 is a step forward. I long for a compact with EVF, Sony RX100 with NEX6 - EVF !!

Indeed, and as not so new developments - specifically large, detailed OLED EVFs - are quite routinely equipping better MILCs (btw. providing a good way of chimping as well) there is no need to be bothered with those awkward LCDs, smeared with fingerprints, anymore :) !!

I found taking picture with just the LCD fairly difficult. This may has to do with age too. As you get older, especially with glasses on, you start to need to put the camera further away from you to see (Unless with reading glasses, or for the very least remove your existing glasses). Problem solve with a viewfinder. EVF wasn't too good until recently. I am currently using a 5dm3, E-M5, and the X Pro 1 all have Viewfinder. Putting your eye against a viewfinder also help reduce camera shake, which I think is another important factor to take good picture.

The Panasonic G3 has a beautiful, bright EVF. I read the technology of it, (don't remember the details, but figured it must have been left here from the future along with the Terminator chip :),It is ideal for me - I wouldn't change a thing. So if they put the same thing in a compact superzoom, I'd be first in line.

re: viewfinders, I most enjoy the act of looking "through" a TTL viewfinder, with camera up to my face, rather than "at" a screen on the back, at a bit of a distance. BUT having BOTH is the best! There are times and uses for both, and current technology makes it easy enough to provide both. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and just because you prefer one way over the other yourself, doesn't make the other side stupid, too old or too young, etc. Let's have our cake and eat it too, with extra frosting if we want!

The problem is viewfinders cost money and make cameras bigger. This leaves two alternatives to a viewfinder model - a smaller, cheaper model with the same spec or a smaller model with a better spec for the same price. Given that choice, more people decide they can live without the viewfinder, so manufacturers make only a couple of models to satisfy the niches that demand one.

Only one camera here is pocketable. the rest are too bulky for your front pockets partly due to lenses and one camera's body is unsually wider than the rest about nearly half a footlong or more.I'll go for Canon squaresh small body with zoom. I wonder if the lens will eventually retracted or resettled well flushed to the facewall of the camera and it will be nice and neat that way.

Well, somebody had to try that. Odd that it had to be Canon, this thing is more in Casio or Samsung line. There were a lot of complaints lately that Canon is falling behind and does not really innovate. They've heard the message but they still need to work on the understanding of it.

Barney. Will you be returning there tomorrow? If so take a wet fish and slap the company reps around the head with it and repeat. " I want a viewfinder, I want a viewfinder" You might need more than one fish.

Entropius hit the nail on the head: the real innovation is the LCD screen and the electronic viewfinder because it's like looking at a miniature version of the photograph you're about to make. With an optical viewfinder you're peering through an hole at the visual world and trying to visualize in your head what the future photograph will look like. With an electronic EVF or screen you already know before you press the shutter. Incidentally, Sony has made the RX-100 screen perfectly visible in bright sunlight via a menu setting. It works fine.

alot of people, like myself, like to immerse themselves in the scene via a viewfinder.. having all that extra info around you when you dont use a viewfinder can detract from the composition.as. well.3d viewfinder would be a no no.. photography 101 (or 102) teaches that elemments in a frame may merge together in a unappopriate way.. and you cant see this if you are composing the shot in 3d.. you cant see the merging when you have a real depth perception

Seems from the picture of the polaroid that the sensor appears to be in the body.What's that rectangular opening in the center of the mount and what's that circular opening at the mount end of the lens?

Here's hoping DPR gets a shot sooner than later to review the X20. It is such an extreme departure from the X10 (totally different style of sensor, not just different color filter) that a comparison between it and its forebearer would be juicy.

That Sigma USB dock is a good thing also for the following reason. It will build up pressure on camera manufacturers to either also build such a dock for their own lenses or enable micro-adjustment in all bodies.

i wonder how you make note of the correction needed to then input that when the lens is on the dock.. i presume you do some thing with the lens on the camera..? or, is there some way to point the lens at a target while it is the dock and focus is evaluated by an application? that doesn't make a lot of sense, though...

The dock will receive the same kind of info that a camera would while controlling the lens (ie : access to zoom and focus-mechanism).

That would enable them to simulate a camera (or at the very least its interface) in the software. Add a reference picture to use with your camera and one probably could make an educated guess what adjustments you would have to make to the lens.

What is updated is code for the protocols that the lens and camera use to communicate. Remember, third-parties often have to reverse-engineer the proprietary interfaces that cameras use because e.g. Canon are not that interested in letting third-party lens manufacturers make as functional lenses as they do themselves.

"Polaroid surprised us at CES with semi-functional mockups of three new interchangeable lens cameras."

From what I read, the cameras themselves were entirely non-functional. The only thing that worked is the Android OS on one of them, but no indication that it was anything more than a plastic fake model with a cheap android phone pcb and screen glued in to look legit.

So, smoke and mirrors. I still want to hear Polaroid's justification for putting the sensor with the lens. So far the experience with every interchangeable lens system was that the lenses have much better longevity than the body. Constant sensor tech improvements were one of the main factors, especially paired with the slow pace of the mature high-end optics industry and the prices of good quality glass.